And the beat(ing) goes on

Which is the more appropriate cliche here: A few rotten apples spoil the barrel? Or the fish rots from the head down? From AP for March 26 comes news that an Army investigator

found that detainees "were being systematically and intentionally mistreated" at a holding facility near Mosul in December 2003. ...

"There is evidence that suggests the 311th MI personnel and/or translators engaged in physical torture of the detainees," a memo from the investigator said. ...

The investigating officer, whose name was blacked out of the documents, said the troops were poorly trained and encouraged to abuse prisoners. [Emphasis added.]

The report was filed in January, 2004. The date is significant because it was that same month when the brass supposedly first became aware of the abuses as Abu Ghraib - abuses which when they came to public light were ascribed to a "few bad apples" in an isolated case. Now we know for a fact that the high command (and, we can surely assume, the White House) had in hand credible accusations of torture, "systematic ... intentional ... encouraged," at, at least, one other facility.

We don't just think, we don't just logically deduce, we don't just "know," we now know for a demonstrated fact that they were lying through their goddam teeth the whole time. Lying from beginning to end, as Mosul joins the growing list of sites from Gitmo to Iraq to Afghanistan where brutality has been a regular part of the process. How many "isolated incidents" does it take to equal one "pattern?"

And as for my opening question, things seem pretty fishy to me.

Footnote: To make it even worse,

[n]o one was punished for the abuses [at Mosul], however, because the investigating officer said there was not enough proof against any individual.

Apparently a "code of silence" does not apply only to Mafia types.